IntroductionWe used the data of the German biologics register RABBIT, a nationwide prospective cohort study, to investigate the risk of new or recurrent malignancy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving biologics compared to conventional disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs).MethodsThe analysis was based on patients with RA enrolled in RABBIT at the start of a biologic or conventional DMARD therapy between 01 May 2001 and 31 December 2006. Incidences of first or recurrent malignancies were analysed separately. A nested case-control design was used to investigate the risk of developing a first malignancy. Matching criteria were: age, gender, follow-up time, disease activity score based on 28 joint counts (DAS28) at study entry, smoking status, and selected chronic co-morbid conditions (obstructive or other lung disease, kidney, liver or gastrointestinal disease, psoriasis).ResultsA prior malignancy was reported in 122 out of 5,120 patients. Fifty-eight of these patients had received anti-TNFα agents, 9 anakinra, and 55 conventional DMARDs at study entry. In 14 patients (ever exposed to anti-TNFα: eight, to anakinra: one) 15 recurrent cancers were observed. The average time period since the onset of the first malignancy was nine years. Crude recurrence rates per 1,000 patient-years (pyrs) were 45.5 for patients exposed to anti-TNFα agents, 32.3 for anakinra patients and 31.4 for patients exposed to DMARDs only (Incidence rate ratio anti-TNFα vs. DMARD = 1.4, P = 0.6.). In patients without prior cancer, 74 patients (70% female, mean age: 61.3) developed a first malignancy during the observation. This corresponds to an incidence rate (IR) of 6.0/1,000 pyrs. Forty-four of these patients were ever exposed to anti-TNFα treatment (IR = 5.1/1,000 pyrs). In a nested case-control study comparing cancer patients to cancer-free controls, 44 of the cancer patients and 44 of the cancer-free controls were ever exposed to anti-TNFα agents (P = 1.0).ConclusionsNo significant differences in the overall incidence of malignancies in patients exposed or unexposed to anti-TNFα or anakinra treatment were found. The same applied to the risk of recurrent malignancies. However, in particular this last finding needs further validation in larger data sets.

Objective. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluate the efficacy of treatments in selected groups of patients defined by strict inclusion criteria. The value of these trials in predicting therapeutic effectiveness in "real world" patients is limited. This observational cohort study was designed to complement the knowledge obtained in RCTs by evaluating the effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) according to their eligibility for the major trials.Methods. Using the data from the German biologics register Rheumatoid Arthritis Observation of Biologic Therapy (RABBIT [in German]), we investigated how many of the RA patients who were treated with a TNF inhibitor (infliximab, etanercept, or adalimumab) would have been eligible for the major clinical trials that led to approval of the drugs. In addition, therapeutic effectiveness was compared in the eligible and ineligible patients using the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) and 50% (ACR50) improvement response criteria.Results. Only 21-33% of the patients in the RAB-BIT register would have been eligible for the major trials. In these patients, the ACR20 and ACR50 improvement responses, indicating therapeutic effectiveness, were comparable with the response rates in the published trials. ACR response rates were lower in those patients considered ineligible for the trials; however, absolute improvement was similar to that in eligible patients. Ineligible patients had lower baseline disease activity, more comorbidity, and lower functional status.Conclusion. RCT cohorts reflect only a minor proportion of the patients treated with biologic agents in routine care. In the clinic setting, the indications for treatment with biologic agents are not identical to the inclusion criteria for trials. Despite the smaller relative improvement achieved in these patients with longstanding, severe RA who would not fulfill the inclusion criteria of a major trial, the majority of such patients would nevertheless benefit from biologic therapy.Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are generally considered the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy of new therapeutic interventions for defined medical conditions. Standardized trial designs are necessary to ensure that patients randomly allocated to the treatment arms are as similar as possible. The setting of the RCT is therefore artificial, due to restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria, fixed treatment regimens, and rigidity of followup (1,2). In rheumatology, as in many other fields of medicine, trials cannot reflect effectiveness of treatments in the real world (3), since a majority of

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a combination of tumour necrosis factor a (TNFa) inhibitors with either methotrexate or leflunomide in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a real-world setting. Methods: Data from 1769 outpatients enrolled in the German biologics register RABBIT who were treated with one of the TNFa inhibitors adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab in combination with either methotrexate (n = 1375) or leflunomide (n = 394) were included in the analysis. Clinical status including disease activity as well as treatment data were documented by the treating rheumatologist at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months of follow-up. Results: Patients treated with a combination of biologics with leflunomide had significantly higher baseline disease activity than those treated with methotrexate. The highest disease activity was found for patients treated with the combination infliximab/leflunomide. After 36 months, the discontinuation rates were 46.3%, 51.3% and 61.5% for combinations of etanercept, adalimumab and infliximab with methotrexate and 53.4%, 63.1% and 67.1% for combinations with leflunomide, respectively. European League Against Rheumatism response rates after 24 months ranged from 74% to 81% for combinations with methotrexate and 72% to 81% for combinations with leflunomide. Conclusion: The current clinical practice is to use methotrexate as a first choice for the combination with TNFa antagonists. In a number of patients methotrexate has to be replaced by another disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Our data support the view that leflunomide is a useful alternative if methotrexate is contraindicated.

Patient reports on ADRs are a useful source of information on the safety of new therapies. However, drug surveillance cannot rely on patient reports only, since even life-threatening events were not reported as ADRs by the patients who failed to associate them with the therapy. When coding patient reports on ADRs to a standard coding system, the differences in language and terminology between patients and physicians should be taken into account.